Campaigns Wikia:Allow Points of View/Approval Vote
Poll :We're still testing the poll function. If there are problems with the vote, we will use the Confirmation below as "voter verified balloting". This vote will determine whether will become official policy for Campaigns Wikia. : |Before voting on this policy, you may want to read its Talk page.}} APOV approval Approve Disapprove Abstain Vote ends September 30th. You may change your vote until the end of the vote count. Confirmation of vote (6/3/0) :Please vote here as well. Votes should be in the following form: :: ::I think some factual basis would be a good idea. That way blantant vandalism can be removed without the silly red tape that plagues government. Jfing[[Wikipedia:User:Jfingers88/Esperanza|'e']]rs88 17:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC) ::APOV doesn't negate the need for civility, and doesn't negate the No Personal Attacks policy. A statement like the one mentioned above wouldn't be considered "stupid", it would be considered vandalism. If it's an opinion, it's the kind of opinion that we should keep to ourselves. Basically, any statement that you make here is public. If you're willing to be known to the world for having such an opinion, fine. But that doesn't mean that the rest of the community has to stand for it. Chadlupkes 22:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC) ::That is true. I was merely speaking to the APOV aspect of that statement. There are certainly other aspects to it as well. ::Valid point. I think a parallel issue was addressed by the US Supreme Court, where they ruled that yelling fire in a movie is not an exercise of free speech. APOV is a principle as much as a policy. Questions and concerns will be made by the users of the system, and rulings will be made by the administrators or by the people. Votes have so far had a bad record, but we'll work on that. But any opinion anywhere would certainly get out of control. And posts that violate civility and no personal attacks, once those policies get approved, will be dealt with according to each incident. I do think articulating specific rules and procedures is important, but seeing as how this site is barely 2 months old, I'm not sure how much we can or want to put forward beforehand. This kind of a forum has never been seen before. Wikipedia doesn't county, because their NPOV policy just won't work with a political website. Nobody on any side of any political argument can be considered neutral. Chadlupkes 19:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC) :::In that case, I would recommend keeping APOV a principle for now and not make it a policy. I like the 1POV policy because it is very practicle and contributes to the APOV principle. I think we can achieve an overall APOV atmosphere by making clear deliniations between the NPOV sections (which I think are necessary) and 1POV sections (which I think are necessary). I think we should explore those areas more and see how we can get them to interact. Ferguson 20:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC) ::::Whether we call it a policy or a principle, and I see the difference, they're pretty much the same right now. And it still needs approval by the community. We're of course going to be working on the details as we move forward. Chadlupkes 21:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC) :::::Just making sure... Ferguson 17:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC) :::::...those concerns are out there, so as we do move forward we have those issues in mind. I think I had the ALLPOV policy in mind when I voted, so I may change my vote, having reviewed the APOV policy again and finding it more open-ended than I recalled. If all this is saying is, 'Any point of view is allowed on this site,' then I'm for it. As long as we keep in mind not all point's of view have equal relevancy and should not be given equal visibility (though they should all have equal exisitance status). But we need to be working on the next stage of this policy, which is how we organize all these POVs into a cogent aggregation of political philosophy and ideas. Final vote tally (6/3/0) Policy is approved. - Chadlupkes 00:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)